The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given that it's two delete and one keep case (without clear cut evidence) and one allow userfication; thus, if someone wants userfication they can ask on WP:REFUND. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Johnson-Hinds[edit]

Jordan Johnson-Hinds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. Has had a few bit roles and one recurring role. Meters (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Via Google you find more references, seems ok for WP:ACTORS because of his role roles in several television shows. TulongaN (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TulongaN (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • I have no problem withdrawing this if you can show that he has had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I did not see multiple significant roles. Meters (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm concerned with a number of SPAs editing this article to add similarly overinflated claims of his roles. Bit parts and a few recurring roles are written up as major roles or even starring roles. As I said, if there is sufficient reliably sourced evidence of significant roles I have no problem withdrawing this nomination. I'm not seeing it, and the continued push to overinflate claims is not only not convincing me, it is making me think that this is a case of socking or meatpuppetry. Meters (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing NACTOR and GNG. He's had a few recurring roles, plus a part in the latest Robocop movie, but that's not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow move to userspace if anyone wants to keep the article there. The subject may be getting close to notability, and if he clearly passes the threshold, the article can be moved back to the mainspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. But tag for maintenance, for promotionalism seems like Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahabad Markanda[edit]

Shahabad Markanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been hijacked by Kansalmitul & others and become an unsourced collection of vanity claims. The nonsense has been interleaved with some good contributions but the overall effect is that there is no identifiable "good" version to revert to. Regrettably WP:TNT is required. Cabayi (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. AfD is not cleanup. Someone can rewrite it. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  22:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per Aguyintobooks someone needs to rewrite the article, but it passes WP:GEOLAND [1] [2]. I have added a few sources to the article.  FITINDIA  03:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cities are notable. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ATAT Tech[edit]

ATAT Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails :WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV .The company was founded in 2016 clearly upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON as well .Lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources. Written by an apparently undeclared paid editor Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable, as there is not enough independent, reliable sources that support the material in the article. Also, the article was created by a paid editor, which indicates the possibility for abuse that we have not spotted. For these reasons, this article should be deleted. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing in the WP:VG/RS custom search engine, leading me to believe this company is not notable. Clear delete. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shangjing (china)[edit]

Shangjing (china) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article created by a WP:SPA (with a WP:COI username) about a Chinese village, I question why the draft was accepted by User:Aguyintobooks when it has 0 reference? By the way China has ~624,000 villages and 99.9% aren't notable by any means. We barely have any articles for the roughly ~41,636 Chinese towns and townships (typically administering ~10+ villages each). Timmyshin (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. All populated places are presumed notable under WP:GEOLAND even if they have a population of only 3 people (by consensus is the minimum population required). All 624,000 villages in China and all 41,000 regions are inherently notable and are not candidates for deletion. I did check, and this village does exist, and is where the article says it is, so I have no issue with WP:V criteria. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Per WP:GEOLAND Bobherry Talk Edits 01:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per WP:PLACEDAB, this article should probably be located at Shangjing, Zhejiang. Vycl1994 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are at least 6 Shangjing's in Zhejiang alone, there's a Shangjing Village (上京村) in Rui'an, a Shangjing Village (上京村) in Qingtian County, a Shangjing Village (上京村) in Zhuji, a Shangjing Village (上井村) in Xianju County, a Shangjing Village (上京村) in Jindong District, Jinhua, as well as this Shangjing Village (上境村) in Wucheng District, Jinhua. Since China has 30+ provinces, it's not unreasonable to estimate that there are 100+ Shangjing's in China. Creating an article for one and not the others (and not even listing all of them on the dab page) just because a certain WP:SPA comes from that village is a case of WP:Systemicbias, but who is going to create articles for all 624,000 villages? Not to mention we would also have to move thousands of articles on Chinese towns and townships already created for disambiguation reasons. Timmyshin (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand WP:systemic bias correctly, the solution is to write articles about all the other villages for which reliable external sources exist, not to delete articles that are the odd one of its kind. Deryck C. 10:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You aren't wrong but that's only in theory. In practice it's impossible to write articles for all 624,000 articles, or even half of them, therefore this WP:systemicbias will remain until the time we die (if WP still exists). Even creating dab pages for all of them requires nothing short of a Herculean effort considering how few editors work on these topics. Timmyshin (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. While WP:GEOLAND is a thing, it's hardly the only consideration here. The article is clearly promotional, not reliably sourced, and at an inappropriate title. Whether the solution is stubifying and moving or deleting and starting over elsewhere is unimportant, but the article should not stay as it is, where it is. ansh666 07:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually for a Chinese village, this is extremely well made, unless we have already made a viable alternative, I don't think we should use TNT, I fully support a rename. @Timmyshin:, I think a new task-force at Wikiproject China would be needed to deal with this, its a huge project, as huge as doing the USA to begin with. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  09:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved. I have moved it to a more appropriate title as ^ suggested. I have also removed the offending unsourced mentions to some international tourist venture. The remaining article text is mostly made up of listing the official designated heritage buildings in the village, my thoughts are that these buildings are individually notable as historic protected sites (there are requirements for sources to grant protection, etc, etc. WikiProject historic sites has a consensus on it) I am therefore reluctant to remove them since there is a systemic bias against cultural buildings in non-western cultures. (I still think it should be speedy kept) --Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  09:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND and all the keep comments above. This is indeed a real place (Shangjing near Tangxi, Jinhua, Zhejiang) attested by both Google Maps and Baidu Maps at the location indicated by the article. I searched for Chinese-language news sources and it appears that this village rose to fame this year because of its role in an international student exchange programme, and is therefore covered by a number of travel news sites: [3][4][5]. Deryck C. 10:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I usually vote on Indian villages. Sometimes though, there are articles for which I cannot find any references to verify the content. If I am able to find some basic information in census records (village name, area, population, literacy rate, schools), I advocate for keeping it. In this case, the article doesn't have English sources but there may be Chinese sources. If someone can find them and translate/verify, I will vote a keep. There are some nice images in the article and it seems whoever is writing it may have some personal knowledge of the village. So I don't want to delete this.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The village meets GNG as there are sources ([6]、[7]) that discuss the history of the village in detail. --Antigng (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. The subject has withdrawn the request, however there's clearly consensus here that Lidz is sufficiently public that requested deletion is not available for this biography, and further that the subject meets our inclusion guidelines regardless of the request to delete. Thus I'm recording the result as keep. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Lidz[edit]

Franz Lidz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject requests deletion, see [8], and see talk page for more details. Based on the criteria at WP:LOWPROFILE and past unrelated discussions I'm inclined to endorse the request. Note that this article has been the recent target of an undisclosed paid editing ring. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Filer note - WP:NPF is also relevant to this request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Person does meet GNG. Has had multiple articles (10) with his byline in The New York Times. Multiple articles in Sports Illustrated. Multiple books which have been reviewed in appropriate media, including the NYT. Multiple articles (over 80) in NYT mentioning him by name. Meets criteria as novelist and as columnist. And the "bad editors" are best handled separately, not by removing what appears, at this point, to be a reasonable BLP. If it were in any way disparaging, I would !vote "delete" in a flash, but that is not the article status as we discuss this. Collect (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is notable/important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrasapuentes (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, per the wishes of Mr. Lidz in accordance with WP:LOWPROFILE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per BMK & DGG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but LOWPROFILE cannot possible apply to a person who's been a professional journalist for decades, has published books and memoirs (which put his personal life out for inspection), one of which has even been made into a film. Lidz' wishes in this situation are irrelevant, he's a public figure, and he's made himself a public figure by his own actions. He's more than welcome to comment on the talk page about things he wishes would be added or removed from the article or need to be changed in his view, but we cannot put ourselves into the position of being dictated to by clearly public figures about whether we should have an article about them or not. It makes a mockery of our editorial integrity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Stricken, BMK and DGG are right. I shouldn't have made a knee-jerk comment out of frustration with the talk page situation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep By a look at the sources provided and the literature the person has written, including a book which was made into a Hollywood film, this person seems more than notable enough to have an article.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a heads up, INDIAN REVERTER is a brand new account created about an hour ago with 19 edits, all of which are keep comments at AfDs. It's certainly unusual behavior for a new account. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A notable journalist and author who request for deletion is based on incorrect presumptions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies WP:AUTHOR #4 with multiple reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For the reasons given above. He has a very public career.Based on the talk page discussion, I am inclined to think that the request for deletion (if it indeed comes from the subject) is a reaction to our writing the article in a way he does not like, in particular our not accepting the earlier versions' hyperbola and pr-orinted material about him. This is the sort of request we should never accommodate. If there is specific objections to the material included, we can of course deal with them, but I cannot imagine what they would be. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. Particularly given there's been no OTRS confirmation, I fail to understand why we're even at AfD. If there's some actual argument as to why this individual might be non-notable, I would reconsider my !vote. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- The definition of LowProfile is rather specific, usually applying to individuals who are famous for one event (not applicable here), the victims of ambush journalism or those who did not seek attention (not applicable here), or those who have avoided all media attention (not applicable, he has presumably done book signings and been part of a film, and is a member of the media). I think he meets the criteria of high-profile, but notable may be another issue. I'd side with keep . Barsportsunlimited (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- sorry Ivan, I don't support subject requests deletion without otrs verification. In regards to your comment - Note that this article has been the recent target of an undisclosed paid editing ring - this means nothing in regards to wp:notability to support deletion. In regards to Ivan's WP:NPF concern, he is not according to the links and article detail imo relatively unknown- Govindaharihari (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Collect, Beyond My Ken and DGG. There is no way that we should delete this article, because Lidz is clearly a public figure. Instead, we should expand and improve the article, and archive the talk page foolishness. The lack of OTRS verification is also an issue, but I would oppose deletion even if we were sure that Lidz really wants it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I requested this deletion in order to blank the scurrilous accusations and unsupported aspersions made by a couple of WP editors. I'm happy to report that those comments have since been expunged. But there's something deeply troubling about a deletion process that allows those very editors to vote on the outcome. One of them at least had the decency to apologize. The other has made a mockery of your editorial integrity. When a college professor sympathetic to me punches gaping holes in the editor's wild and reckless conclusions, the editor lashes out, belittles the professor and disparages my work. This isn't my idea of "neutrality" and, for the sake of the general public, I hope it's not WP's.FranzLidz (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you - and, as best I can, have tried to prevent some of the worst abuses on biographical articles. It is, indeed, an uphill struggle at times. You would be aghast at reading User:Collect/BLP where I quote the attitudes of some such "editors". Collect (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your support. As for the other self-righteous fulminations you cite -- ugh!FranzLidz (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, as far as I am aware, the account "Franz Lidz" has yet to verify their identity as the writer Franz Lidz with OTRS. Nor has the "journalism professor" confirmed their identity as such.

As for the claims made by the account Franz Lidz above -- which are much more accusatory and derogatory than anything said on the article talk page by Wikipedia editors -- they are, to put it mildly, gross misrepresentations of the discussion on the talk page and of the content of the article. No one on the talk page has accused Franz Lidz of doing anything improper, and the material removed from the article was done -- by a number of different editors -- for standard reasons of reducing promotionalism. It would have been better, if "Franz Lidz" is indeed Franz Lidz, for them to come to the talk page and make specific objections to specific material that has been removed, rather than barrelling into Wikipedia full of self-righteousness and loaded for bear, armed with erroneous information from the "journalism professor", and firing randomly at whatever targets present themselves.

In my view, this is not a genuine BLP issue, and the way to protect Wikipedia's editorial integrity is not to bend to the wishes of an article subject (if "Franz Lidz" is indeed Franz Lidz) who seems to prefer a hagiographic version of our article to one more encyclopedic in content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've said all along I'd be happy to confirm my identity. Unfortunately, no one has tried to contact me or sent me instructions. I'd even talk to somebody like you! (See previous post.FranzLidz (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FranzLidz: We were told that your identity was being handled "off-line", but have heard nothing about that since. In any case, no one is going to come to you, since the onus is on you to show that you are who you claim to be. Go to WP:OTRS and follow the directions there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm looking into the OTRS issue - but I don't anticipate saying more until morning (Many people are unaware that we are not permitted to even acknowledge the existence of an OTRS email without permission from the contacting person) --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional Comment I see no reason to await a response re OTRS. Is my opinion, and one I think is shared by many editors, that the wishes of the subject are relevant and close calls and I don't think this is a close call. In other words I agree with Cullens comment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Identify confirmation I can confirm that OTRS is in receipt of an email from Franz Lidz and I have confirmed his identity.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Sphilbrick, that's very good to know. However, it does not change my !vote in any way, since there's no question of Lidz' notability and that he is a public figure. As I have said, Lidz (now that we know it's actually him), is welcome to make productive suggestions on the talk page as to changes they believe should be made to the article, and editors will evaluate those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - has attained significant coverage. Article was previously in poor shape but has been improved in recent days. As for the talk page foolishness, it should be archived/deleted as appropriate. Neutrality^talk 01:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Filer note - I'm about to close this, Mr. Lidz has withdrawn the request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

V. K. Adarsh[edit]

V. K. Adarsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article V. K. Adarsh is not a notable person. Most links are also not about the person (those are of some blogging website URLs),and cannot even find any articles related to person on Newspapers, which may or may not be notable. There is nothing about this person which makes him notable. 137.97.11.103 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC) -- Nomination on behalf of an anonymous user [9]. – Uanfala 19:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet WP:BIO written as WP:PROMO and does not have WP:CS--EC Racing (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not important/notable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrasapuentes (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being a "social media evangelist" isn't a notable reason.Willard84 (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. He's received the state government's Science Journalism Award. Is this significant? – Uanfala 10:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not a significant award.2405:204:D485:1080:24F9:C7B7:26B7:292D (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable person, fails WP:BIO and URLs pointed to his blog and shopping cart websites. 122.174.250.10 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Although there are more commenters recommending keeping this article, I don't find much policy-based strength in the arguments. With the addition of the potentially inappropriate canvassing for keeping the article, the discussion may be artificially skewed to that point of view. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Frick[edit]

Grace Frick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Grace Frick appears to be known solely for her association with Marguerite Yourcenar. WP:INHERITED applies here. All three references are about Yourcenar, not Frick who is mentioned only in context of the relationship with her. I cannot find sufficient evidence that Frick meets WP:PROF to establish notability on her own. A redirect to the article on Yourcenar may be a suitable alternative to deletion. Deli nk (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrasapuentes (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or Redirect to Marguerite Yourcenar. No independent notability. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG, WP:NOTINHERITED.Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Frick was the first dean Hartford College for Women and it's remembered for being one of the reason the college survived during the World War II times. Other than that she taught in the more important women colleges in the United States and was the translator of Yourcenar's books in English. I improved the article.

• Keep: academic dean at precursor of Hartford College for Women suffices for notability; I've added it to lead for clarity. PamD 21:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic dean' does nor satisfy any of the WP:Prof criteria. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Point 6 of WP:Prof: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisa.rolle (talk • contribs)

Hartford College for Women, like most colleges, does not qualify as a major academic institution, so WP:Prof#C6 is not passed. However, work as a sometime translator of the awesome Marguerite Yourcenar, particularly of The Memoirs of Hadrian, does confer some notability, and I have altered my vote according to WP:Author, among which I include translators, as translators usually get a raw deal on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep The current references in the article show that she passes the notablity test. Pichpich (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which references? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

^[4]

^[5]

^[6]

^[7]

^[8]

These sources are mostly about Marguerite Yourcenar and justify a redirect rather than a delete. The only source directly about Frick is a routine local obituary. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Other than the obituary that is not routine being in a major newspaper (The Hartford Courant is the largest daily newspaper in the U.S. state of Connecticut), there is the Hartford College Blog: "Second Dean, Grace Frick 1940-43. A scholar of French language and literature, Grace Frick became the second dean of Hartford Junior College in 1940. She taught English at HJC in addition to fulfilling her administrative duties. A native of Kansas City, Mo., she was a 1925 graduate of Wellesley College. She received an master's from Wellesley two years later. Frick completed additional academic work at both Yale and the University of Kansas. She had taught previously at Stephens Junior College for Women at Columbia, Mo., and at Barnard College of Colombia University before coming to HJC. Frick was faced with the impact of World War II which eventually reinforced the need for women’s education. Women stepped into careers formerly open primarily to men and took over family businesses as men departed for service in the armed forces. Although enrollment at the college dropped during the war, the trustees felt that they needed to keep the college afloat for the duration. They predicted that the next generations of women would increasingly expect education of a high caliber after learning during the war that they could handle professions and trades formerly viewed as masculine. Today Grace Frick is best known because of her lifelong relationship with Belgian writer Marguerite Yourcenar. The two first met in 1937 in Paris. Later, while Frick was taking courses at Yale in New Haven, Conn., Yourcenar came to the United States to avoid the disruptions in Europe caused by the war. The two began to share an apartment in 1939 while Frick was teaching at Barnard. Yourcenar later joined Frick in Hartford. Unlike Dean Randall, Grace Frick did not live on campus. She and Yourcenar lived together in an apartment building at 549 Prospect Ave. in West Hartford and kept the apartment until April 1951. Yourcenar taught at Hartford Junior College beginning in1941, teaching French literature and art history for free. The two women were active in the intellectual and artistic circles in Hartford during their years of residence. Youcenar also commuted to Bronxville, N. Y. during this period to teach at Sarah Lawrence College. Frick initially left Hartford College for Women for a teaching position at Connecticut College for Women in New London, Conn. in 1943. Frick became Yourcenar’s translator and continued in that role until her own death. The two finally settled in 1950 at Mount Desert Island in Maine. Grace Frick died in 1979. The first two administrators of the college had been exceptional scholars but had now moved on to careers focusing on teaching in the case of Randall and research and translation in the case of Frick. Although these first two deans had served very briefly, the administrator who followed Grace Frick would be the woman who most fully defined Hartford College for Women."

• Keep There is no requirement that information about Frick must be separate from Yourcenar or anyone else..."does not need to be the main topic of the source material". There is also no requirement that any biography meet alternative PROF standards, merely GNG. However, as is pointed out above, she meets criteria #6. There are multiple books which discuss the two women: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Sufficient reliable sources over time to provide independent verification of subject's biography without completing original research. Clearly meets GNG. SusunW (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources mentioned clearly show she was notable as an educator. Simply because she translated Yourcenar does not deprive her of notability, quite the contrary.--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Leading an institution of higher education is a notable accomplishment, and her other academic/literary work contributes to her general notability. The article is also sourced well and there's obviously no issue of self-promotion. -- Penny Richards (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ludicrous nomination. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was not ludicrous. The case is borderline and fails WP:Prof, probably fails WP:GNG but possibly might scrape through a suitable interpreted WP:Author as I have discussed above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge or redirect. Even with everything written above, I'm having a hard time seeing how notability is established independent of Marguerite Yourcenar. Claims such as "Leading an institution of higher education", don't even seem to be true. If you have to resort to distortion to make the case, I don't think there is a strong case to make. The role of dean (an administrator of a subunit of an organization) at Hartford Junior College does not appear to be significant. Edgeweyes (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have the wrong college. She led the Hartford College for Women. And it was a leading institution: "HCW was one of the first colleges in the country to offer a major in Women's Studies. The program was cited as one of the most progressive programs in the field by the New England Women's Studies Association due to its special emphasis on the relationship between gender, race, and class." Point 6 of WP:PROF is proven. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two-year colleges are never major institutions, which require, at least, a significant international research presence. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure where there is the rule that "Two-year colleges are never major institutions", anyway, "Hartford College for Women (HCW) played an important part in the history of higher education for women in the US and was one of the finest providers of single sex education in its day. The college began as "Mt. Holyoke in Hartford" to provide the first two years of an academically challenging curriculum to young women who could not afford to attend a four year residential college." more at the website if you want to read: [16] Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That issue is best discussed on the talk pages of WP:Prof. Instead of barrel-scraping you might do better to address the one area of the BIO that is most likely to lead to notability-the translations of the illustrious author Marguerite Yourcenar. These receive a minimum of attention in the article, but will be the one thing Frick is remembered for. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The whole reason this article was brought to AfD is because she was associated with Yourcenar, someone more notable than herself, and that always causes our editors to think that less-notable means not-notable. It's a regular problem here with somewhat-famous women who marry famous men, and it's the same issue this time regardless of the fact that her partner was also a woman. So you are asking the article to emphasize the parts that prompted the deletion, rather than the parts that make her independently notable (assuming she is). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point I see as being important is that Frick was not just the partner of a more famous woman (which would be non-notable according to WP:Not inherited), but acted creatively as the successful translator of an important writer. It is irrelevant whether the person whose books she translated was her partner or not. I think the reason that the article was taken to AfD was that the article was not clearly enough written to emphasize this crucial point but buried it under a bog of irrelevancies about the worthy but routine teaching appointments she held. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I think everyone is forgetting what I wrote in the first comment. This article is not mine but when I saw it was in AfD I improved the article. Before my improvements the whole article consisted of "Grace Frick (12 January 1903 – 18 November 1979) was an American English professor, translator, and researcher, most commonly for French author Marguerite Yourcenar, her lifelong partner. Grace Frick was born in Kansas. Frick worked on a dissertation at Yale University, starting in 1937, the same year she met Yourcenar." Now the article is more than suitable to prove her notability, and if someone wants to improve it more, they are more than welcome. Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the stub was better before you worked on it and obfuscated the main reason for notability. However, the article has been improved since then and is now in a tolerable state. After the article was nominated for AfD you sought help at the WiR talk page[17], ignoring the recommendation at WP:Canvassing which advises Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made. As expected, pile-on Keeps emerged rapidly. Some were content-free, some seemed absent of logical argument, some were nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT, some argued, contrary to established WP:Prof policy, that all Deans of Junior Colleges are automatically notable. None of them dealt with the central issue for the notability of the biography, the work done as a translator. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

If moving up a sentence adding a "most" and inverting the lead [18] is making it better, I'm more than fine with it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Alliance for Surgery and Anesthesia Presence (ASAP)[edit]

The Alliance for Surgery and Anesthesia Presence (ASAP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is sourced well. Strongest argument for deletion is "borderline", which doesn't hold up. People making delete requests on grounds of notability should be sure it should be deleted, the onus is on them to provide evidence, not to simply put an article up for deletion on a whim.Egaoblai (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (before I decide) -- As far as I am concerned, notability is determined by the difference the group has made, not where they meet, or who is on the membership roster. Notability is not inherited. That's why WP generally shuns mission statements. Don't tell me what you intend to do; show me what you've done. The papers and research ought to be first, if it is to stay Rhadow (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Erlang (unit). (non-admin closure) feminist 12:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High-loss calculation[edit]

High-loss calculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded per WP:NODEADLINES, but if an article goes EIGHT YEARS without a single edit, I think it at least needs attention. This seems to be nothing more than a mere dicdef, and I was unable to find any sources to build it up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly more than a dicdef. I have added to WP:TELECOM and introduced additional incoming links. Threat of deletion should not be used as a means to get improvements made to articles. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hello Kvng -- If threat of deletion is not enough, then adding a tag or category, or leaving a tag in place, is unlikely to help this list, some members of which go back to 2006:
• Needs references: 205,958
• Needs references (BLP): 2,695
• Needs more references: 314,990
• Needs more references (BLP): 49,779
• Needs in-text citations: 88,878
• Needs reliable references: 63,898
• Has unsourced quotes: 1,138
• Has unsourced statements: 325,912

We need to deal with these items one-by-one, as TenPoundHammer has done. The alternative is to postulate that all of them have a valid reference somewhere on the web, and delete all million reference tags. Rhadow (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 5 million articles on WP so your numbers are not so shocking in that context. These fix-it-now-or-delete-it ultimatums are simply not in line with deletion policy. If you disagree, we can continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DEL7 and WP:DEL14 (in particular as a violation of WP:NOT#OR). I preformed a search on regular Google, Google Scholar, and a few other academic databases. I see nothing that is verifiable in this entry, meaning that it fails our most core content policy, WP:V, which if failed after an exhaustive search is reason for deletion. The fact that this also appears to be pure original research also makes it eligible for deletion as a violation of WP:NOT. These are both valid reasons for deletion under deletion policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference to a reputable offline source (unfortunately one not available on Google Books but frequently referenced in other books) so yours is not a strong argument. Although I have not found any suitable sources to add, my online research indicates this is not a hoax or neologism or any such. How about if I merge this article into Erlang (unit)? It is directly related and I believe to would be helpful for readers there to know that the Erlang formulas have limitations. ~Kvng (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is a strong argument since its been sitting unreferenced for years and no one has managed to bring forth sources to meet WP:V (even after credible searches, which I did perform). This is not a question of notability, but a question of verifiability, which is also a valid deletion rationale (DEL7). There is nothing to merge because all of the content is unsourced so would be inappropriate in any article. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material that has been challenged or expected to be challenged needs to be cited. So do you expect this to be challenged or are you challenging everything that is in this article? If it were not in a stand-alone article (i.e. merged into Erlang (unit)), would you be insisting that it be removed from there immediately or would ((cn)) tagging it be sufficient? ~Kvng (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable from WP:V. No one has shown that any of the material currently in the article is verifiable, even in offline sources. This isn't about there being one reference to one potential offline source: we have no idea what is in it, and no one claims to. It might contradict everything in this article for all we know. Nothing in this article has been verified, which also makes it pure OR. Both of those are valid deletion reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are inappropriately mixing verifiable with verified. We don't require material in the encyclopedia to be verified we just require some level of assurance that it is verifiable. Our level of assurance has to be high - approaching or meeting verified - for controversial information such as WP:BPL. Some uncontroversial, widely known information does not require citations because it can be verified by a consensus of editors. For more obscure information such as we're dealing with here, verifiability is adequately satisfied with an off-line reference that someone can go to a library and sort out. If this doesn't cut it for you for this topic, that's fine, we can disagree. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - I agree with Kvng that a low-profile offline ref would be sufficient to warrant inclusion in a parent article (i.e. a merge). But where is that ref? The only ref I see in the article or its history is a dead link to [19] with the term "personal communication" (which does not ring like a published source). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect @Tigraan and Kvng:, looking over this again, I would be fine with a redirect here, no merge, but allowing the content to be kept in the history for a potential merge if the online source can actually be produced. There's nothing harmful in the page history, so a redirect would follow both WP:PRESERVE and WP:V. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't had a chance to re-review and answer questions about this. It looks like I may have gotten my wires crossed with another AfD. I am comfortable with a redirect for now and would salvage and merge anything useful as my time allows. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirec and possibly merge to Erlang (unit), seems a minor subtopic of that topic area.  Sandstein  10:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. One of the delete !votes concerning "likes on facebook" relative to 'seeming notability' is not guideline- or policy-based. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saara Lamberg[edit]

Saara Lamberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NACTOR. almost all her acting roles are short appearances or in non notable productions. everything she has produced is "short" and non notable. also no articles really link to her except the Underbelly movie which she appeared in for a few minutes. It's a very low bar if we accept minor actors like this into WP. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The same false argument is used here as in the previous discussion, where it has allready been proven not to be true.--Snaevar (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not seem that notable.. only 125 likes on facebook Abrasapuentes (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails actor notabilty.122.171.237.5 (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  10:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of alternate reality games[edit]

History of alternate reality games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An entirely-unnecessary sub-page of Alternate reality game, no content worth merging. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some amount of original research here, but also a lot of good well sourced content. This article is long enough to avoid a merger. Antrocent (♫♬) 17:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Even if the OR is removed, the page would likely still exist due to WP: Split: The main page itself is 84k in size. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:OSE is not a very good stand-alone argument. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei at the 2013 Southeast Asian Games[edit]

Brunei at the 2013 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORGIN, WP:BRANCH, and GNG. Not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – not substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. This information is already covered in "2013 Southeast Asian Games" which is probably notable. Previous PROD [20] ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep everything I've seen suggests that performances of countries at multi-country international games events are inherently notable. CJK09 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep because this is a notable event and your basically saying that lets delete all of the other regional pages as it "doesn't follow that rule". Does it need improving, yes. Is it worth deleting it, no. Matt294069 is coming 05:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly moving to draft. There is no clear consensus to keep, but there is also a lack of the sourcing and substance to maintain this as an article in mainspace. It will remain in draft space until it is improved and reviewed through the usual process. If it is not further improved, it will eventually be deleted. bd2412 T 01:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarku Japan[edit]

Sarku Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have nominated this article for deletion due to the article's lack of reliable third-party citations after a decade of existance per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS and unable to find anything about the company via Google. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion discussion page created on behalf of IP 68.50.32.85. The rationale for deletion may also be found on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This restaurant chain is big enough for an article, but the present article is terrible. Zero^talk 06:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Here is a Washington Post article about the chain: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/sarku-japan-seeks-to-move-from-food-courts-to-standalone-franchises/2012/04/20/gIQAiJ4UaT_story.html?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.1fa1dab2c5a1 - though I would feel better if I could find a second. There are a number of individual local restaurant reviews that might count. --GRuban (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as per Wahington Post article and reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. One would expect a company of its size would have more written about it in contemporary newspaper articles. Are there any newspaper articles that describes who had started the Canada-based chain (which strangely does not have any restaurants in Canada itself)? Why is the company based in Canada? Local restaurant reviews appear to be very difficult to locate that would satisfy WP:VERIFY (Yelp reviews does not satisfy WP:VERIFY); the few that I have seen so far is just an extension of the newspaper's advertising dept. due to the lack of non-positive reviews from those same writers. The current article is awful because it is partially based on company material with the rest of the material being unsubstantiated claims. As currently written, the article fails WP:NOTE -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Two local restaurant reviews: New York Newsday Fredericksburg (Virginia) Free Lance–Star It's not going to be a featured article, but it's going to be a passable stub. --GRuban (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  A few more: Times Ledger The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. And here is the second real story on the chain I was looking for: Nation's Restaurant News. It's a full keep. --GRuban (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Compared to a few days ago, the subject of the article now has the potential of becoming a passable stub as long as an editor is willing to be WP:BOLD and fix this terrible article without the article falling into the WP:PROMO trap which recently AfDed PizzaRev. (I have to give GRuban special thanks for spending the time to dig out these articles.) The New York Newsday article is significant because it is written by an identified writer for a significant publication who also included the minor problems with her meal during her visit. On the other hand, the Times Ledger seems very promotional and may not be able to satisfy WP:NOTE by itself. Depending on how it is used, the 'Nation's Restaurant News article could fail per Wikipedia:CORP. The The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article is very significant because it can point an editor to additional material about a single franchise in Atlanta, such as these AJC and Atlanta Business Chronicle articles. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. The reference posted by GRuban fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as it is entirely based on an interview with the founder, with no independent opinion/analysis, therefore also fails as an intellectually independent references and is a PRIMARY source. The second "news" story fails since it is based on a company announcement. The restaurant reviews posted provide no in-depth information on the topic. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The situation is even worst than what HighKing had depicted since the interview in question was with an insignificant franchise owner and not with a non-existent "founder" since the business appears to be the corporate creation of a Canada-based company. No one seems to be able to locate a single newspaper articles that describes the creation of the company and/or brand that was not based on a press release. The current article appears to be exclusively composed of material from a single corporate source. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsatile flow generator[edit]

Pulsatile flow generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• The scope of the article should be general, but the content is entirely focused on the properties of one such pulsatile flow generator
• The tone is far from being neutral (likely written with conflict of interest)
• The only two references provided are unlikely to describe the topic in a neutral light ("pilot study", "Novel Concept") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariadacapo (talk • contribs)

• delete per WP:TNT As the nom says, this is a general class of devices (the feds say so), and what we have here is an article hawking one particular design. I'm not even sure the thing is notable on its own, but at any rate the current article is hopelessly promotional. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without prejudice - I agree with all the problems identified here but it is possible to improve things. Usually we add some tags and wait to see what happens before rushing to delete. I have added some tags based on the discussion here. There are not yet any incoming links so this is off on a corner on its own and won't likely embarrass anyone while it is improved. ~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, inappropriate and promotional tone, making the content and references suspect.  Sandstein  10:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowikis[edit]

Yellowikis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The website is long-defunct; no sign that it ever obtained general notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. The previous AFDs' claims to keep were "it's notable because of the lawsuit", but Wikipedia is not news. stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 12:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this article has been kept 5 times previously because it received a lot of coverage in its day and is part of Internet history (for example, was the subject of a three part case study on ZDNet [21]). Antrocent (♫♬) 03:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Moon Tycoon. Merge can be carried out from article history. ansh666 09:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Sea Tycoon[edit]

Deep Sea Tycoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article seems to be non notable - the article itself indicates the video game received no reviews, I couldn't find anything relevant about it with a Google Search. The external links which could be used for reference point to a primary source (the game's page), a dead link, and to a wiki-like website about games which, given its crowdsourced nature cannot be used as a ref. Having no references and being apparently not notable, I'm nominating it for deletion. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - WP:ASSERTN is not the way to judge notability. Mobygames lists 4 reliable reviews and 3 of which are still up on the internet. [22]. It seems like it barely squeaks by notability, but it still seems notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The game is described as being similar to the developer's earlier title, Moon Tycoon. It seems to be sort of a spiritual sequel if not part of the same series. I first thought that perhaps Deep Sea Tycoon could have its own section in that article. However that title seems to have even less coverage. Clearly the two should be combined in some way, though. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Tycoon is indeed notable enough for its own article, per MobyGames. [23] Plenty of reviews here to be inserted. A redirect to Moon Tycoon wouldn't be out of the question._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would a section at Moon Tycoon then suffice? Deep Sea Tycoon doesn't have that much text to begin with. We can keep the infobox, place it next to the text in the section there. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say I wouldn't be prejudiced against a redirect. If you changed your vote to redirect as well, as per your proposal, then that would be the consensus, unless someone else weighs in differently._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Moon Tycoon, the first part of the series. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is some combination of merge and redirect, per Magoo and Zxcvbnm and WP:ATD. --Izno (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Have 3 Eggs[edit]

I Have 3 Eggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from IMDB and a number of similar directory sites there don't seem to be any sources that mention this. I see nothing to indicate that this film meets GNG or any of the subject specific notability criteria at WP:NFO. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 05:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article does not even mention anything about this film's plot. Vorbee (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This just seems a half good version of 'I have 6 eggs'... Not seeing WP:GNG or WP:NFILM notability. after a quick google search. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it was even a quarter as good as The Dirty Dozen, It might have something going for it. :) — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 00:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Clearly there is a verify divisive view over to whether or not this person is notable, so it's best to close this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Biscoe[edit]

Bert Biscoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Local councillor. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Personage is main subject in multiple independent news reports over 25+ year period. Personage is also active in groups/organisations/charities/council(s) (yes two councils) which have attracted more independent news coverage. this is not counting ample primary sources. NB. WP:OFFLINE may apply to some older sources. see article talk page. A Guy into Books (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The subject appears to be one of 123 on the Cornwall Council, and most of these other councillors will also have similar, routine political coverage of their opinions and positions in reliable new reports. WP:POLITICIAN exists because not all elected officials are notable for simply doing their jobs, but I'll wait to see if anyone posts a "claim to fame" that rises above this. -Location (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NPOL. Local political figure with the usual amount of routine coverage. Nothing exceptional or in-depth to demonstrate notability. The sources discussed on the article talkpage are primary sources such as his profile on the Cornwall Council website, his own website or sources such as local blogs - not independent, reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting another comment to say that ITV and The Guardian are considered national independent reliable sources. [[24]] and [[25]] also please note http://www.cornwalllive.com/ is not a 'local blog', but a regional news outlet. total ignorance in the article of his music career should probably be dealt with also since several books cover him on this topic. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ITV and Guardian articles are about a bridge, his opinion as a local councillor is quoted within them. That does not add up to notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note there is a KW article for this person also. https://kw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Biscoe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 12:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a local councilor clearly fails the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bard of Cornish Gorsedh, this indicates he and his work have been recognised as significant by a major cultural organisation in his area of work. DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article to reflect this, it seems that his primary career was as a Bard, and that he only went into politics later. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless the article sees significant improvement before close. Nothing here constitutes an automatic presumption of notability just because he exists, if the sourcing present in the article isn't sufficient to get him over WP:GNG — and while it's true that an article can be deemed to pass GNG if adequate sources exist even if the article isn't up to scratch yet, it's not enough to just say that adequate sources exist: one has to show hard evidence that adequate sources exist, such as the actual hard results of an actual search. And even if this does get deleted, that doesn't constitute a permanent ban on his ever being allowed to have an article — if somebody can write and source something better than this, they are allowed to try again. But we can't keep an entirely primary sourced version just because somebody asserts that stronger sources exist somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article was rewritten at this point

This article has now been considerably improved, with new references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really hasn't been improved. I see far too many references which are to primary sources, Blogspot blogs and/or glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of things that aren't him, and not even close to enough that are to reliable source coverage that has him as its subject. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there are at least three WP:RS sources about him, which is enough for WP:GNG. Most the other comment here refer to WP:NPOL which i can't see being relevant here. A Guy into Books (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, three sources aren't enough for GNG if you're shooting for "notable because media coverage of him exists" rather than "notable because he passes a subject-specific inclusion criterion". If three sources were all it took to pass GNG, we'd have to start keeping articles about presidents of church bake sale committees, teenagers who tried out for their high school football team six months after having a toe amputated, and the woman a mile down the road from my parents who found a pig in her yard one day. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources will definitively pass GNG in most discussions I have come across, I think its fairly clear NPOL is not the main guideline here. Also we have articles about all of those things. (ok not really, but you get the point). A Guy into Books (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only way three sources can be enough to pass GNG by themselves is if they're supporting passage of a must-include criterion like being an MP or winning an Oscar. If you're going for "notable just because media coverage exists", then no, three sources aren't enough to get there. Three sources quite regularly do exist for lots of people or things that still don't qualify for a Wikipedia article, such as the examples I gave in the preceding comment — hell, three sources exist about me — so three sources aren't enough for GNG if they're not verifying passage of any SNGs. And I was talking about high school athletes, not professional ones, and I meant the woman, not the pig — so your examples don't contradict my point at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lmao you checked the links ok can you please explain to me what it takes for a living person to pass GNG. because I have no clue what your standard of proof is, mine is just 3 RS/V/O sources. Consider subject is Published author of (11?) books, bard of the Gorsedh, musician, local councillor, unitary authority councillor, and portfolio holder (boss) of transport in cornwall, responsible for 50m a year budget, trustee on the board of the Royal Cornwall museum, trustee of 3 charities, chairman of 2 charity boards, also is a representative of the Cornish Constitutional Convention. Is considered locally to be a primary figure in the Cornish Idenity debate and is one of the few people who actually speak cornish. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My standard is that the person either (a) has a strong claim to passing a subject-specific inclusion standard, or (b) can show that he got quite a lot more reliable source coverage (i.e. quite a bit more than just two, three or four pieces of it) than the woman a mile down the road from my parents got for finding the pig in her yard. Neither of which have been shown as true here yet. And most of what you asked me to consider isn't notability claims at all: local authority councillor is not a notability claim; being trustee or chairman of a charity board is not a notability claim; and on and so forth — those are all things that hundreds of thousands of people in the world, probably into the millions if you consider people who used to hold those roles but don't still because they're retired or dead, so they aren't notability freebies in the absence of quite a lot more reliable source coverage than the woman with the pig got. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Published bards, recognised by their peers, should be seen as Notable. The council work belongs here, but it's an irrelevance for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Further to Bearcat's comments. I have decided that the correct subject-specific inclusion standard this personage is notable under is WP:COMPOSER. which is due to his bardic work and subsequent recognition by the Gorsedh. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now that A Guy into Books has aimed the article towards Biscoe's career as a Bard, this now does pass WP:COMPOSER. Zangar (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have overhauled the sources and added some new ones related to his bardic career. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  11:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a lot of good work on the article, but I do not see the level of coverage to meet WP:COMPOSER or WP:GNG. There are many sources on this - probably too many - but many are not reliable sources, or are primary sources. Being a bard does not make you inherently notable. You commenting on this page so many times can also misleadingly read like different people commenting, and you cannot have multiple keep votes - I have struck your second vote. Please only continue to comment here if you have something new to say. Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose since you nominated this for deletion that would be your opinion, you do have a record to maintain and all. My point is that this article is well sourced, with at least one secondary sources to back up each use of a primary source, and by my count, 5 good sources that show WP:GNG, Wikipedia should rightfully be stringent in keeping cruft out, but this undoubtedly meets all the relevant guidelines, especially WP:GNG. As far as my comments are concerned, this was closed as keep and then mysteriously reopened, obviously I am going to comment. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you citing WP:COMPOSER and ignoring WP:AUTHOR? He's an invited member of the Cornish Gorsedd. For a bard, that is how you get recognised as a bard. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He could probably meet WP:AUTHOR, he has published a lot of books, some of which are listed in the article already, I just don't know the precedent for bards, they are a sort of author/poet/musician combo which is hard to place. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  20:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have had a major disagreement with Boleyn elsewhere over this Afd. However during that I noticed that notwithstanding the comments made by others here, this person actually does meet WP:NPOL #1. as he held a 'provincewide office' as Portfolio Holder for Transport in Cornwall. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  22:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall is a county, not a province or state. NPOL #1 does not include offices held at the county level of government, and England's lack of any level of government between the counties and Westminster does not reify the counties into states or provinces for the purposes of NPOL #1 — whether there are provinces/states or not, county offices are still evaluated under NPOL #2 and only NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, everywhere outside London is 'the provinces' by British definition. And with the exception of Northern Ireland, which is electively a single province (often known as 'The province'), every administrative section of the UK is its own province. I realise you are probably American (actually I just checked, you are Canadian, but same difference for this comparison), where counties are pretty insignificant, but here in the UK that is not the case, what you consider as a county, we call a parish, what you call a state, we call a county. As a point of fact province is the same as county when filling out addresses and internet forms. people sending me mail from Spain for example will fill in the province as Devon, this is standard correct procedure. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason a county is "equivalent" to a state or province in filling out a mailing address is because the county is the only division that exists for that purpose in England, precisely because no equivalent to states or provinces is in place to supplant them. It does not constitute evidence that English counties are politically equivalent to states or provinces for the purposes of getting from NPOL #2 to NPOL #1 — Wikipedians from England are the ones who spearheaded the consensus that county councils are not a level of government that confers an automatic NPOL pass on every councillor. And no, the North American equivalent to a UK parish would be called a township, not a county — a county here is the same thing as a county there.Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt 'any councillor', this is a (former) member of the 10 member executive cabinet group [26], theres 113 councillors below him.

I'm going back to arguing WP:GNG and author/composer is sufficient. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of the county council's executive/cabinet still isn't an automatic notability boost over any other county councillor, because it's still a local office that has to be weighed under NPOL #2 rather than NPOL #1 — so it still depends on sourcing that work well enough to get him past GNG for it, not on any automatic inclusion rights. If you want to switch to arguing notability under a creative criterion rather than a political one, that's fine — I have nothing to say about that, since I'm not well-equipped to properly assess creative notability in many cases for a British writer or musician whose audience hasn't crossed The Pond like Radiohead's or Zadie Smith's. My issue in this subthread had to do with the claim that a county council seat could be reified into a provincial or state legislature for the purposes of NPOL, because it can't. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is dragging on a bit. Can someone who has not commented before take a look and give a viewpoint? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:NPOL overall fails WP:BIO and does not meet WP:AUTHOR for published books. --EC Racing (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bards are important Abrasapuentes (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As rewritten, the article overcomes the original criticism. Comment: I'm surprised to read that Aguyintobooks is being told not to comment here when his every response is challenged. I don't see how the user is supposed to remain silent and have that viewed as acquiescence. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying he can't comment. However, if his comment includes a misunderstanding of what our notability standards entail, or a misrepresentation of how the subject does or doesn't pass them, nobody is obligated to let that misapprehension go unresponded to either. Freedom of speech does not offer an exemption from being responded to by other people who are also exercising their own freedom of speech. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But clearly not everyone shares your interpretation of NPOL, even on the policy board I can't see anyone to agree that sources related to political activity are discounted when considering notability, nor do I agree that a biography has to pass a subject specific criterion to be encyclopedic relevant when the general notability criteria clearly applies when they do not pass such subject specific guideline.

To quote your comment earlier "My standard is that the person either (a) has a strong claim to passing a subject-specific inclusion standard, or (b) can show that he got quite a lot more reliable source coverage (i.e. quite a bit more than just two, three or four pieces of it) than the woman a mile down the road from my parents got for finding the pig in her yard" - this is obviously your opinion, possibly based on your own interpretation of something written in the ~2250 pages of policy we seem to have. Now my standard is the GNG of - "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which means at least two sources where the subject is mentioned with enough detail that the person be identified without recourse to research, and the sources not be written by the subject or relation thereof. - there are about 8-9 good sources, 15 if you include the ones about his late political activity. There are more sources offline but that is beside the point because I cannot be asked to manually trawl miles of microfiche.

There is absolutely no way I agree with your assessment of the notability guideline, nor have I noticed your interpretation being used in any context except Corpdepth, where it is admirable. I am not going to suggest you have confused them, so I am strongly disagreeing they work in the same way and calling you a deletionist. I am putting way to much effort into arguing this so I am well glad its about to be closed and I can get on with something else. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single county councillor who has ever existed in every county on earth could always show two pieces of local media coverage — so if your "two sources" interpretation were all it took to get a county councillor over GNG, then every county councillor in existence would always pass GNG and our consensus that county councillors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles would be inherently disembowelled. So no, to get a county councillor past GNG does take a lot more than just two or three pieces of local coverage. I am not wrong about this, nor am I applying any variant personal standards that differ so much as one iota from established consensus in this domain of activity: at the county level of office, we require evidence that the person is more notable than the norm, by virtue of being able to show a lot more and wider coverage than county councillors can always simply be expected to have in their local media. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was of course referring to the coverage by national media as well. I cannot understand the bias against this grouping "Every single county councillor who has ever existed in every county on earth" is ~56,000 people, as councils were only invented in the 19th century in England and around the 1960-1980's in much of the world. Their equivalents in China and Indian (where the exist) are not elected in the same way and do not get news coverage, seemingly a western preoccupation. NPOL does not put forward what you say, it infact specifically states quite the contrary; "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".", and from the common outcomes policy, which also does not support your interpretation "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics". Therefore I must still disagree with you, even though I am confident he passes by his other accomplishments, notably the bardic work, before his political career that he seemingly only started after retirement. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  20:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree does not meet WP:NPOL. Poorly referenced including a list of every reference they appear to have even been tangentially referenced in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I regretfully concur that this does not meet WP:NPOL and the level of available sources does not reach WP:GNG either, the list of references show a valiant attempt to show what there is, yet it is unfortunately not significant coverage of this man. MartinJones (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Just posting the references removed by Doc James and brigade just before their comments here after sticking an edit war template on my talk page after two reverts (really?). I am not saying they are completely biased, but anyway here are references they removed:^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]}  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  20:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This ONE is particularly interesting in that it contains nothing. That is correct, nothing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats hardly my fault, it had content at one point.  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  21:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not sure what this massive list of "refs" is supposed to be not a single one of them satisfies GNG and certainly isn't independent reliable coverage. And neither does anything else I can find. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly you didn't look very hard, not at the article even, also you forgot to sign.^[34]  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  21:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read both the article and the massive refspam list here - none of it includes coverage. Perhaps you can point out the specific sources that feature in-depth coverage?CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ok:

1. Subject is a bard of the Gorsedh Kernow, which in itself is enough to pass criterion 1 of WP:CREATIVE. His work as a menstrel in the Kernewek tradition has received significant critical attention and therefore meets criterion 4 of WP:CREATIVE.

(will add more)  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  22:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Doc James, Bearcat, and Chrissymad. Fails NPOL. The great things about the subject notability guidelines is that they give us a lens through witch to view the GNG: if they have coverage that would be expected for their level in their chosen field, but do not meet the subject guideline, it is unlikely that they will meet our standards for the GNG, because the coverage will have been deemed run of the mill. That is the case here. An appeal to the GNG from an SNG is possible, but I don't see there being enough in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: yes I thinks its established he fails NPOL, what about the rest?  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 

I'm not convinced by your above arguments in that regard. Considering the CREATIVE 1 claim is dubious: the overwhleming majority of people listed at Gorsedh_Kernow#Lists_of_Cornish_bards_and_venues are not articles. That suggests that the Wikipedia community hasn't generally recognized it as meeting that criterion. There is zero evidence he also meets CREATIVE 4: if you can provide peer reviewed work concerning him or provide in-depth reviews and commentary from highly reliable sources, I might be convinced to change my mind, but none of what has been presented gets near that standard from what I can see. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly reliable"? Well that puts him out of the picture. :) Druids, Bards and other esteemed old bearded people are not known for their highly reliable work. I doubt any sane mainstream reviewer would even bother, in fact the Indepedant had this to say. Its a matter of some national pride to only publish commentary on bardic work in Cornish. eg. Viajor Gans Geryow eus rydhses gans y brentin gonis... etc (from a commentary by Skogyn Pryv) In short you can take what you will from it.  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CREATIVE 4 requires significant critical coverage of their work. That means analysis and reviews that engage with the text, not simply press coverage. In response to your comment above re: CREATIVE 1, the Wikipedia community does not seem to share your opinion that this title is generally sufficient for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more correct to say that Wikipedians haven't considered it before, I mean all the comments on bards above^ are pretty positive. There is no way obscure publications written in a dead language spoken only 1000 people could be considered press coverage, or really any form of popular culture, the whole cultural tradition only survives because the EU think it is nationally important to support this minority ethnic group and therefore gives it funding.  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  21:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Realistically the entire argument above is mostly irrelevant back and forth about policies that don't really apply, what matters is that crition 1 of WP:CREATIVE 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. This is definitely passed, as stated by myself and five others here, the fact no one can look beyond the politics is neither here nor there, you can discount every single reference and he would still be notable according to the subject specific guidelines. Its not really possible at the moment to write as much about this person as is perhaps going to be written eventually, mostly due to sources being on microfiche and in other languages, nevertheless there is a sufficient amount of verifiable information already included to make a start class article.  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  21:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. But yes, number of followers on soundcloud is not really relevant Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Jack[edit]

Heavy Jack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Soup (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiply (Heavy Jack album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely unsourced, does not meet notability criteria. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no coverage for this group in independent reliable sources; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BAND.  gongshow  talk  09:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing here passes any WP:NMUSIC criterion, and there's no evidence of the reliable source media coverage required to pass WP:GNG in lieu — the only references here are a primary source and a WordPress blog, which are not notability-assisting sources. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform for aspiring wannabes — making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. Note I'm also adding their two albums which also have separate articles, as they will also have to go if this does. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Only 63 followers on soundcloud! Abrasapuentes (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't measure notability by counting social media followers per se — we measure it by the volume of reliable source media coverage that can or can't be shown, not by how many followers they do or don't have on Facebook or Twitter or Soundcloud or YouTube. But it does point in the direction of their not being particularly well-known — it's just not the determining factor in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Not finding significant coverage in RS for the band or its albums that are also nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  10:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child[edit]

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of coverage in independent secondary sources. Geogene (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hum. This is a tricky one. On the one hand there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of coverage in secondary sources, but then there isn't nothing either. There is the UNESCO publication mentioned on the page, there are other mentions in other publications, books etc. On the other hand it appears to be a center for academics in the area based at Harvard, I'm not sure that it has a whole lot of wider importance outside of the narrow expert field it works in. I don't really know how to assess the notability. People attached to it have appeared in the popular media as spokespeople, I suppose by that measure it is notable enough to be a thing. 20:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)JMWt (talk)

I think this is pretty straightforward. I don't consider the brief mention in the UNESCO document to be secondary, because it cites NSCDC 2007, which is most likely a press release or the organization's website. I have not checked up on the authors to see if they are members of NSCDC, but if some of them are, then that would definitely make that a primary source because then they would be writing about their own research group. I don't doubt that a group of academics calls themselves this, and that they have a website hosted on a Harvard server. But it fails the notability standards because there are no independent sources about the group. The idea here is to write an article, not a dictionary or directory entry, and to do that without engaging in original research. There's not enough out there to do that. Geogene (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. I wouldn't say it is "straightforward", but generally agree that there isn't any secondary sources about the council (rather than referencing it) that I can find. JMWt (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete articles need to be based on indepdent, scholarly sources which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm getting 31 hits for the group's name at Newspapers.com, all paywalled. Apparently a publisher of academic monographs based at Harvard. 14K hits on Google for "(the name of the group) + Harvard." THIS article in The Atlantic makes use of the chair of NSCDC as an expert in his field. Wikipedia would be weakened by the deletion, in my estimation, so I advise Keep under the policy of Ignore All Rules. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cappincur GAA[edit]

Cappincur GAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see how this team can possibly meet the notability criteria, only plays in a county league Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of competing in a national competition; fails GNG also Spiderone 10:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Battlefield[edit]

The Battlefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-written non-notable band Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC; blatantly promotional. Blackguard 17:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC. -- Dane ^talk 19:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't judge the WP:RS quality of these two sources: [27][28] but they do provide some significant coverage of the band. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Not notable/important. Abrasapuentes (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keep vote rationales are erroneous. Player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football (only youth teams) nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egy Maulana Vikri[edit]

Egy Maulana Vikri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did not meet WP:NFOOTY. Yogwi21 (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

so many other page with less information like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhyar_Rashid but not proposed to be deleted. i suggest you proposed other page like this to be deleted too. these are some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguy%E1%BB%85n_Kh%E1%BA%AFc_Khi%C3%AAm, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eakkanit_Punya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamakh1986 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. he is plays in national teams, very famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.254.111.224 (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above !votes. At the young age the subject is this is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON and article can always be recreated if and when the subject meets the WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has played in a fully pro league and national team, and very famous in Asia Persibandoeng (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Persibandoeng: Egy's team (Persab Brebes) does not play in the Liga 1 (Indonesia), and also Egy has never played for the national team, only on youth level. Thus the subject of the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Egy has played in a national team againts Cambodia national football team 8 June, when indonesia used u-22 players, but for FIFA Match (Senior). 180.254.111.224 (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not !vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And he did not play in that game according to this source or this source. Not even on the bench. ClubOranje^T 11:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep iF Egy has played in a national team. MbahBotak (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Egy has played in a national team.who meets WP:NFOOTY Saya Indonesia (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guys Egy hasn't yet played for the Indonesia senior national team, so he doesn't yet meet WP:NFOOTY. Playing at youth level doesn't qualify as WP:NFOOTY. Sources such as this make it clear that Egy has only played at youth level. If anyone can find a reliable source showing that he played at senior national level I would gladly change my !vote but so far I'm not seeing anything. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep famous player in Asia. Imnotyou11 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has not yet achieved notability criteria for footballers per WP:NFOOTBALL. Has NOT played senior international, and NFOOTBALL specifically excludes youth appearances as conferring notability. Some coverage out there, but not enough in my opinion to satisfy GNG. Some hype suggests he may make it in the near future, but Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Currently WP:TOOSOON, but recreate if and when.ClubOranje^T 11:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom DaveApter (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep iF Egy has played in a national team. 171.98.223.61 (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bitnation[edit]

Bitnation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unambiguous advertising, makes largely unfounded and wildly inaccurate claims about this unrecognised nation that has no territory and may be some internet hype storm/hoax. Claims various things to do with ID papers, marriages and insurance, none of which have any legal standing anywhere except perhaps la la land?. Also probably fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite having 41 references and puffery about being a nation-state, this is merely buzzword-fueled hype for what is effectively a web forum. I'm not certain it doesn't meet WP:WEB, but the entire article would be re-written from scratch. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is definitely written like an advertisement, selectively stating opinions as fact (and I have accordingly added an ((advert)) tag) but that lack of neutrality can be—and should have been—fixed without even considering deletion. POV is rarely a reason to delete. Even the section WP:G11 within WP:SPEEDY states that "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." All that would be needed would be some objectivity about which of the project's claims are accepted by whom, and more discrimination in the use of sources (favoring the independent ones). The article on the Principality of Sealand could serve as a model; the present article's last two sections (Reception and Controversies) are steps in the right direction. The nominator's claims that the article "probably fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH" and "may be some internet hype storm/hoax" will not withstand a look through the sources, especially those for the last two sections.

—Syrenka V (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator Comment (Delete) regarding Syrenka V's comments. Only 2 or 3 of the references even meet WP:RS, the vast bulk of the text is not backed up by verifiable sources, I still don't see significant coverage by reliable media sources. All I see is a tissue of complex wording and hype generated by the Bitcoin interest group community. Since the so called nation has been happy to work as a digital signature company in Estonia it seems to have limited sources, but not enough for WP:GNG. I am going to rewrite it and put a link here. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looking over the sources. The Wall Street Journal article needs you to log in to read it. [29] The CNN article [30] only mentions it in one sentence: "This could be the ultimate calling for start-ups such as BitNation, which has already begun issuing virtual IDs -- effectively digital passports -- using blockchain technology." The Telegraph article [31] does count is significant coverage in a reliable source. Forbers coverage counts towards notability as well. [32] And this source as well counts towards it[33] Most of the article was created by one single purpose account [34], who might be working for them. It does look like a commercial in its current state, so needs some work done. Dream Focus 11:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have rewritten the article, User:Aguyintobooks/sandbox/Articles/Bitnation, I only see 3. reliable sources. 1. the series of articles by ibtimes. and 2. The Telegraph article. The Wall Street Journal article is just a blog post by a contributor. the CNN article is just a passing mention. All the articles that mention Estonia are infact referring to Estonia's e-residency system, not Bitnations system, in this context, Bitnation is a private company, one of many, providing technical support for e-signatures. so that leaves 3. the forbes article. all the others are primary sources or passing mentions. I still don't think this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Watching this video provided some insight on the context and authenticity of the Bitnation project (experiment) 7m34s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iAg6BITPdc looking far into the future, this article has value to be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothache (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A purely promotional page, with content such as:

• In December 2014 Bitnation announced it was working with Johan Nygren’s resilience.me Basic Income protocol, built on a mutual insurance-like structure!

Etc. Such content is specifically excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Bartlett, Jamie (2017). Radicals Chasing Utopia: Inside the Rogue Movements Trying to Change the World. New York: Nation Books. ISBN 1568589875. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

     The book notes:

     The more Susanne looked into it, the more she became convinced it was a way to build a free-market anarchist state online, allowing citizens to meet, communicate, make agreements, resolve disputes, provide peer-to-peer security and social insurance and trade with each other in a way that could not be monitored or controlled. After travelling the world to research it further, in early 2014 she wrote a short paper announcing this new nation that would permit people to come together and voluntarily agree how to live: 'The arbitrarily drawn lines called borders, which were once supposed to provide stability, are now the direct cause of instability, due to their "one size fits all" design... [W]e need to replace the nation state model with a better, non-geographical model and voluntary model: Bitnation.' Unlike Liberland, everything is virtual. To become a 'Bitnation citizen' is extremely simple. In fact, I'm one of about 5,000 Bitnation citizens dotted all over the world. All I had to do was agree with the Bitnation constitution, which is a twelve-line poem, and sign up on the site. I input my age, height, and a photo, two witnesses watched and typed in their names, and that generated a 'World Citizenship ID'. A 'hash' of this ID (a unique string of numberse that can be used, in conjunction with a key, to re-create the original file) was then uploaded onto a blockchain, where it will now stay, unchanged, forever.

     ...

     When Susanne presented Bitnation to the conference—which she did while smoking—she explained that the long-term aim of Bitnation, beyond the ID cards and notary services, is to provide a platform for people to come together with other free adults and live according to a set of laws and arbitration methods they've agreed and consented to amongst themselves. It is to create a nation based on the non-aggression principles. Bitnation allows you to take a system of law—modelled on common law, Sharia law or even a law code you've designed yourself—write it up as a private contract, put it on that unchangeable blockchain and invite others to sign up and live by it, tying any digital assets to the agreements made. This is the outer reaches of libertarian thought: polycentric legal systems that live alongside each other and even compete with each other.

     The book extensively discusses the founding and principles of Bitnation.
  2. Souli, Sarah (2016-09-12). "I Became a Citizen of Bitnation, a Blockchain-Powered Virtual Nation. Now What?". Vice. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

     The article notes:

     Virtual. Decentralized. Voluntary. Borderless.

     This is Bitnation, a blockchain-powered government service platform like nothing else. Except, surprisingly, Antarctica.

     "That's currently the only place in the world not covered by nation-state jurisdiction," Susanne Tarkowski Tempelhof, the platform's founder told me matter-of-factly, lighting up a cigarette.

     ...

     Bitnation has nearly 4,000 citizens flung across the globe, though the majority—and its spokesperson—are based in Europe. The platform is gaining momentum at a time when the strains of the nation-state model are increasingly evident. Europe, the birthplace of the Peace of Westphalia and the emergence of sovereign jurisdiction as we know it, is seemingly plagued by a rise in right-wing nationalism, an uneven debt crisis, an influx of refugees, and a Brexit.

     ...

     Through some targeted programs, Bitnation has been able to address specific inadequacies of the European nation-state model. The platform's Refugee Emergency Response project, for example, provides emergency digital ID cards and Bitcoin Visa cards to people escaping war-torn countries and arriving on the shores of Europe.

  3. Marty, Belén (2014-10-17). "Bitnation Founder on a Mission for Stateless Governance". PanAm Post. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

     The article notes:

     The state might one day become obsolete. At least that’s the idea behind the peculiar Bitnation project, which refers to itself as a “collaborative platform for do-it-yourself government.” According to its official website, “Bitnation provides the same services traditional governments provide, from dispute resolutions and insurance to security and much more — but in a geographically unbound, decentralized, and voluntary way.”

     This revolutionary undertaking is incorporated on the blockchain, the same decentralized database behind cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin.

     Susanne T. Tempelhof is the young founder and executive director of this ambitious project that began a couple of months ago. She plans to raise US$2 million in the next 85 days to get Bitnation off the ground. “If we raise $1 million, or even only $500,000, we will still be able to continue, but it will be a lot more stressful,” she told the PanAm Post.

     The journey leading up to Bitnation’s launch has not been without its share of controversy, including publicized disputes between Tempelhof and other members of the team. A few days ago, Cointelegraph published an interview claiming three core members of the team (Nathan Wosnack, Matt Mckibbin, and David Mondrus) abandoned the company.

  4. Hartlep, Michael (2016-03-15). "Bitnation – The virtual country. Online activists have founded a virtual state called Bitnation. The decentralized organization is designed as an alternative to traditional states. There are no limits, and a wide range of options". Deutsche Welle. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.

     The summary of the video notes:

     Bitnation knows no hierarchies, is autonomous, and is based on voluntary participation. Anyone can join, contribute and offer services. The idea is based on the cryptocurrency bitcoin and the technology that produced the latter: blockchain. There are currently 1500 “citizens” worldwide. Bitnation is not without controversy, however. According to the Montevideo Convention a number of conditions must be fulfilled to be recognized as a state. They include a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the ability to enter into relations with other states. Bitnation fails to meet a number of these stipulations.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bitnation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]